Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/358

 § 357.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VTI. this view, holding that a telegraph company may thus exempt itself, except for such errors as arise from " gross negligence" or wilful misconduct on the part of its employes. 1 The failure to transmit and deliver the message as received is prima facie negligence, rendering the company liable; and the burden of proof rests on it to clear itself from fault. 2 be a "night message," company li- able for errors from negligence (nothing contained in blank as to repeating). Bartlett v. Western Un- ion Tel. Co., 62 Me. 209; Hibbard v. Western Union Tel. Co., 33 Wis. 558; Candee v. Same, 34 Wis. 471. Contra, Schwartz v. Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co., 18 Hun, 157; or a cipher message, W. U. Tel. Co. v. Eubauks, 100 Ky. 591. Nor can the company stipulate that the damages arising from mis- takes in unrepeated messages shall not exceed the price of the message. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Blanch- ard, 68 Ga. 299; Thompson v. West- ern Union Tel. Co., 64 Wis. 531. A telegraph company cannot avoid the penal liability imposed by statute for failure to transmit a message cor- rectly, by a contract fixing its liabil- ity at a less sum. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Adams, 87 Ind. 598. See Same v. Young, 93 Ind. 118. Com- pare Same v. Jones, 95 Ind. 228; Same v. Meredith, ib. 93; Same v. Pendleton, ib. 12. 1 Primrose v. W. U. Tel. Co., 154 U. S. 1; Grinnell v. Same, 113 Mass. 299; Kiley v. Same, 109 N. Y. 231; Breeze v. U. S. Tel. Co., 48 N. Y. 132; Becker v. Western Union Tel. Co., 11 Neb. 87; Ellis v. Amer. Tel. Co., 13 Allen, 226; Passmore v. Western Union Tel. Co., 78 Pa. St. 238; AVest- ern Union Tel. Co. v. Carew, 15 Mich. 525; Camp v. Western Union Tel. Co., 1 Mete. (Ky.) 164; Wann v. Western Union Tel. Co., 37 Mo. 338 472; MacAndrew v. Electric Tel. Co., 17 C. B. 3. It may be said, however, that in these cases no negligence appeared beyond the fact that there was an error; and perhaps they are not to be regarded as express au- thorities for the statement that these stipulations cover negligence on the part of the telegraph company or its employes. A stipulation in a tele- graph blank that the company will not be responsible for mistakes in unrepeated messages is reasonable; but would not cover gross negligence or wilful misconduct. Lassiter v. Western Union Tel. Co., 89 N. C. 334; Hart v. Western U. Tel. Co., 66 Cal. 579. See Redington v. Tel. Co., 107 Cal. 317. 2 Telegraph Co. v. Griswold, 37 Ohio St. 301 ; Bartlett v. Western Un. Tel. Co., 62 Me. 209 ; Ritten- house v. Independent Line of Tele- graph, 44 N. Y. 263 ; Baldwin v. U. S. Tel. Co., 45 N. Y. 744 ; Western Un. Tel. Co. v. Carew, 15 Mich. 525, 533 ; Tyler v. Western Un. Tel. Co., 60 111. 421 ; De La Grange v. South Western Tel. Co., 25 La. Ann. 383 ; Western Un. Tel. Co. v. Meek, 49 Ind. 53 ; Turner v. Hawkeye Tel. Co., 41 Iowa, 458 ; Western Un. Tel. Co. u. Short, 53 Ark. 434. Compare Koons v. Western Union Tel. Co., 102 Pa. St. 164 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Reynolds, 77 Va. 173. Contra, Aiken v. Western Union Tel. Co., 69 Iowa, 31. .